Literature DB >> 25231358

Using a model of hypothesis generation to predict eye movements in a visual search task.

Daniel R Buttaccio1, Nicholas D Lange, Rick P Thomas, Michael R Dougherty.   

Abstract

We used a model of hypothesis generation (called HyGene; Thomas, Dougherty, Sprenger, & Harbison, 2008) to make predictions regarding the deployment of attention (as assessed via eye movements) afforded by the cued recall of target characteristics before the onset of a search array. On each trial, while being eyetracked, participants were first presented with a memory prompt that was diagnostic regarding the target's color in a subsequently presented search array. We assume that the memory prompts led to the generation of hypotheses (i.e., potential target characteristics) from long-term memory into working memory to guide attentional processes and ocular-motor behavior. However, given that multiple hypotheses might be generated in response to a prompt, it has been unclear how the focal hypothesis (i.e., the hypothesis that exerts the most influence on search) affects search behavior. We tested two possibilities using first fixation data, with the assumption that the first item fixated within a search array was the focal hypothesis. We found that a model assuming that the first item generated into working memory guides overt attentional processes was most consistent with the data at both the aggregate and single-participant levels of analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25231358     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-014-0463-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  28 in total

1.  Using the dual-target cost to explore the nature of search target representations.

Authors:  Michael J Stroud; Tamaryn Menneer; Kyle R Cave; Nick Donnelly
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Optimal eye movement strategies in visual search.

Authors:  Jiri Najemnik; Wilson S Geisler
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-03-17       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  The effect of items in working memory on the deployment of attention and the eyes during visual search.

Authors:  R Houtkamp; P R Roelfsema
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  A Boolean map theory of visual attention.

Authors:  Liqiang Huang; Harold Pashler
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Less is more: expectation sharpens representations in the primary visual cortex.

Authors:  Peter Kok; Janneke F M Jehee; Floris P de Lange
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2012-07-26       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 6.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.

Authors:  R Desimone; J Duncan
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 12.449

7.  Probability judgment and subadditivity: the role of working memory capacity and constraining retrieval.

Authors:  Michael R P Dougherty; Jennifer Hunter
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-09

8.  Diagnostic hypothesis generation and human judgment.

Authors:  Rick P Thomas; Michael R Dougherty; Amber M Sprenger; J Isaiah Harbison
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  What drives memory-driven attentional capture? The effects of memory type, display type, and search type.

Authors:  Christian N L Olivers
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Automatic guidance of visual attention from verbal working memory.

Authors:  David Soto; Glyn W Humphreys
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.